A Visit to BLM Sacramento Yesterday!!!

[QNCrazy]

I was in Sacramento yesterday and decided to stop by the BLM office to check the status of a claim and some property near my house. The good news is that there is property near my house that is claimable. However, the claim I was looking at appears to be in good standing, for now. The small miner's waiver was filed but no affadavit for assessment. When I asked about the affadavit and the December 30, 2015 deadline, I was told they have a 3 month backlog of paperwork. So I guess I will just have to wait and see. Just wanted to share this info for those who filed their paperwork in December.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A Handbook of Civil War Bullets and Cartridges - Grab it through Amazon!

[goldenIrishman]

That's where most of the problems start Spec. Too many agencies involved that don't communicate with each other! On my last trip to the Mohave County recorders office I was told by the staff there that there is zip, zero and nada communication back and forth between them and the BLM when it comes to claims. I'm pretty darned sure that this is the case with all counties across the country where claims can be filed.

So now the question is, how can it be fixed in such a way that sites like the LR2000 can be both brought up to date and the feds can still get their fees? I've been giving this a lot of thought lately and think I've come up with a way it could be done.

First off, claims are required by law to be filed in the county in which the claim is located. This has been in place since the mining laws were first set up. At the same time, the feds want their fees due to them as per the FPLMA. So now we've got two different agencies involved in the mix which don't communicate with each other. With modern computers, there is no reason that everything couldn't be handled at the county level. We file with the county already, so why shouldn't we be paying the maintenance fees to them as well? The funds could be collected by the individual counties and then forwarded to the BLM. This would keep all the records located and accessible at the county level. The feds would still get their cut and wouldn't have to be pouring man-hours into paperwork and maintaining the LR2000 site. If they decide to keep the LR2000 running so others in different locations can check claim statuses, programming could be developed that would update the site automatically when the counties upload their records to the BLM. These uploads could be done on a weekly basis. The only thing that would be left for the BLM to do would be to issue the federal claim number(s) when a new claim is filed.

Now, should a claim holder miss a filing or not pay their yearly fees, the same system could show this within a week. A system like this could streamline the entire process and make doing our due diligence as simple as a trip to the county recorders office. I'm sure that there is a hole or two in my thinking but I'm also positive that a system like this could work to every ones advantage. While we might not want any changes to the actual mining laws as they currently stand, streamlining the filing system is something that is long overdue.

Also, having different systems of describing a claims boundaries (Aliquot or Bounds & Meters) is counter productive. I think it's time that they allow GPS cords for corners to be allowed. Programming could be developed to make sure that there's no over claiming going on when a claim is filed.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[MadMarshall]

Let's try this one more time.

Claims are made on the ground by discovering a valuable mineral deposit and occupying the land encompassing the deposit. Occupation is the legal enforcement of the possessory right to the mineral deposit. Occupation consists of clearly marking the location and erecting a monument with a description of the location being claimed. That is the right of occupation described in the mining acts.

Claims are made public, as required by law, by making a public record with the county recorder. In addition since 1976 the filing of a notification of the claim location with the BLM State office is required. Both the public record and the informational filing are a part of the ongoing duty to maintain the claimed right.

A right of occupation with a corresponding duty of maintenance.

The mining claim is a claim of right.

The public record is a duty to maintain the claim.

Claims are made on the ground. The point and time of discovery and occupation is how a claim of right is made. Claims are not made at the County Recorder or the BLM. The duty of maintaining the right is not the right itself. A public record is not a claim but it is evidence of a claim.

Mostly todays claims are just Paper Stakes.. Most people spend there time on the computer looking for claims.. People don't sample or find crap let alone a valuable mineral deposit. what laws dictate and the real world 2 different things.. recreational abuse of mining law is what rules the day!!

 

[SpecJet]

I agree that there are a whole lot of issues that are extremely annoying when having to go between all the various counties and the BLM.
A one stop shop for claims would be nice, but I don't think we'll ever see the BLM database updated by counties , the LR2000 portal does a lot more than just mining claims.

Hell, I'd like to be able to view the actual paperwork filed with the BLM. That way we could see the claim maps and supporting documents.
Some counties allow you to view claim documents, but most don't, without paying a fee, what's up with that?
Most counties at least have a searchable database that you can input PLSS info into and get up to date filing information, then others make it practically impossible to do online.

The whole system is a patch work of federal, state and county laws. Very frustrating at times.

 

[Goldwasher]

I agree that there are a whole lot of issues that are extremely annoying when having to go between all the various counties and the BLM.
A one stop shop for claims would be nice, but I don't think we'll ever see the BLM database updated by counties , the LR2000 portal does a lot more than just mining claims.

Hell, I'd like to be able to view the actual paperwork filed with the BLM. That way we could see the claim maps and supporting documents.
Some counties allow you to view claim documents, but most don't, without paying a fee, what's up with that?
Most counties at least have a searchable database that you can input PLSS info into and get up to date filing information, then others make it practically impossible to do online.

The whole system is a patch work of federal, state and county laws. Very frustrating at times.

Ive never had a problem. you do have to pay to print stuff at the county. Blm is public record.....myland matters makes it all way easier. I always go to the county first. I have yet to meet a claim owner who located on their own and didn't put boots on the ground first, and make a discovery and then file. There is so much open ground up here that it normally takes a good discovery to trigger someone to claim. Thats why i only have one right now. Yet, I can go to numerous legally open areas explre and prospect all I want. if I find a spot that stands out I would probably file. For now I'm more than happy with our claim and what it has on it so far. We are constantly sampling and trying to verify our resources to keep it valid. It's really not that hard and for people like me tho whole process is quite enjoyable. The only paper claimers I know of sell on facebook and ebay its not hard to tell who they are. When you check info and see they located two months ago and are selling now its pretty easy to see whats going on. they are essentially selling an invalid claim. It would take money and court to do anything about it so I would definetly avoid that situation.

 

[mikep691]

Clay, while it's in print, Plumas County, Ca. could care less about BLM and their BS requirements. They don't recognize them , and while non-filing with them could pose issues, they stand fast that as long as your filings with the county are in order, your claim remains valid regardless of what BLM, USFS, PTA or anybody else says. This is until you file a forfeiture of rights, or Quit Claim Deed. You continue to be responsible IN THIS COUNTY for property taxes regardless of your claim status with "Information only" BLM. While my claim remains valid with both agencies, filings up to date, etc., I could rest easy knowing in a court of law, my county recordings, in addition to my boots on the ground will prevail even over a BLM file closure. With a small miner waiver, the total annual cost to BLM is a whopping $10 per year.

Isn't there a clearly printed statement in the FLPMA that (paraphrasing) In no way shall this effect the mining laws? While it actually alters them to a degree that an average man without a law degree can't comprehend, or be willing to deal with?

Just saying as you did, my requirements for a valid claim are boots on the ground, and proper county filing that does not include a bogus federal agency that has no power but thinks it has absolute power. Not required by the mining laws and not required by the FLPMA.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Clay, while it's in print, Plumas County, Ca. could care less about BLM and their BS requirements. They don't recognize them , and while non-filing with them could pose issues, they stand fast that as long as your filings with the county are in order, your claim remains valid regardless of what BLM, USFS, PTA or anybody else says. This is until you file a forfeiture of rights, or Quit Claim Deed. You continue to be responsible IN THIS COUNTY for property taxes regardless of your claim status with "Information only" BLM. While my claim remains valid with both agencies, filings up to date, etc., I could rest easy knowing in a court of law, my county recordings, in addition to my boots on the ground will prevail even over a BLM file closure. With a small miner waiver, the total annual cost to BLM is a whopping $10 per year.

Isn't there a clearly printed statement in the FLPMA that (paraphrasing) In no way shall this effect the mining laws? While it actually alters them to a degree that an average man without a law degree can't comprehend, or be willing to deal with?

Just saying as you did, my requirements for a valid claim are boots on the ground, and proper county filing that does not include a bogus federal agency that has no power but thinks it has absolute power. Not required by the mining laws and not required by the FLPMA.

I realize you have a belief that the BLM has no right to a claims filing notice. I don't argue about religion so you are welcome to your beliefs.

Now back to the facts once more:

1. Plumas County can not and never has determined whether your claims are valid. Only a court of law can do that. The County Recorder is an elected official just like your sheriff. The County Recorder is prevented by law from making any determination of the validity of a mining claim or any other property record.

IMPORTANT NOTICE:
The staff of the Recorder’s Office are forbidden by California legal codes to practice law or provide legal advice; this prohibition includes giving advice about what forms you might need or how you should fill them out.

2. The FLPMA is Federal Law. It most certainly does NOT say that it will in no way affect the mining laws. Here is the exact wording:

Except as provided in section 314, section 603, and subsection (f) of section 601 of this Act and in the last sentence of this paragraph, no provision of this section or any other section of this Act shall in any way amend the Mining Law of 1872 or impair the rights of any locators or claims including, but not limited to, rights of ingress and egress. In managing the public lands the Secretary shall, by regulation or other-wise, take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.

As I poster earlier here is the Section 314 that specifically does change the Mining Law of 1872.

§1744. [FLPMA §314]
Recordation of mining claims
(a) Filing requirements
The owner of an unpatented lode or placer mining claim located prior to October 21, 1976, shall, within the three-year period follow- ing October 21, 1976, and prior to December 31 of each year thereafter, file the instruments required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this sub- section. The owner of an unpatented lode or placer mining claim located after October 21, 1976, shall, prior to December 31 of each year following the calendar year in which the said claim was located, file the instruments required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection:

(1) File for record in the office where the location notice or certificate is recorded either a notice of intention to hold the mining claim (including but not limited to such notices as are provided by law to be filed when there has been a suspension or deferment of annual assessment work), an affidavit of assessment work performed thereon, on a detailed report provided by section 28-1 of title 30, relating thereto.

(2) File in the office of the Bureau designated by the Secretary a copy of the official record of the instrument filed or recorded pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, including a description of the location of the mining claim sufficient to locate the claimed lands on the ground.

b) Additional filing requirements
The owner of an unpatented lode or placer mining claim or mill or tunnel site located prior to October 21, 1976 shall, within the three- year period following October 21, 1976, file in the office of the Bureau designated by the Secretary a copy of the official record of the notice of location or certificate of location, including a description of the lo- cation of the mining claim or mill or tunnel site sufficient to locate the claimed lands on the ground. The owner of an unpatented lode or placer mining claim or mill or tunnel site located after October 21, 1976 shall, within ninety days after the date of location of such claim, file in the office of the Bureau designated by the Secretary a copy of the official record of the notice of location or certificate of location, including a description of the location of the mining claim or mill or tunnel site sufficient to locate the claimed lands on the ground.

(c) Failure to file as constituting abandonment; defective or untimely filing
The failure to file such instruments as required by subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall be deemed conclusively to constitute an abandonment of the mining claim or mill or tunnel site by the owner; but it shall not be considered a failure to file if the instrument is defective or not timely filed for record under other Federal laws permitting filing or re- cording thereof, or if the instrument is filed for record by or on behalf of some but not all of the owners of the mining claim or mill or tunnel site.

(d) Validity of claims, waiver of assessment, etc., as unaffected
Such recordation or application by itself shall not render valid any claim which would not be otherwise valid under applicable law. Nothing in this section shall be construed as a waiver of the assessment and other requirements of such law.

Beliefs aside the law is clear that your mining claim is legally abandoned if you do not make your initial and annual BLM filings timely.

I have gone to great extent through the years to provide the material miners and prospectors need to educate themselves. You don't need to believe what I post here you can read the law for yourself. It's freely available Here and Here.

Educate yourself and prosper!

Heavy Pans

 

[QNCrazy]

Clay, you have demonstrated your expertise over and over again on the laws for filing claims in several threads on this forum. Your efforts are recognized and appreciated by those who know you. Don't waste anymore time with this as it appears your are getting frustrated. Some people will have to learn from experience.